Back
Supreme Court imposes Rs 5 lakh on actress, lawyer in case
Bench finds both sides abused judicial process over 11 years; upholds BCI suspension of advocate for disclosing client secrets on television.
In a sharply worded judgment, the on Friday dismissed cross appeals arising from a case that dragged on for over a decade, ordered each party to pay Rs 5 lakh in , and held that neither the actress-client nor the lawyer emerged from the controversy "with credit."
A three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and Vijay Bishnoi upheld the 's (BCI) order suspending advocate from practice for two years and imposing a fine of Rs 3 lakh for breaching by giving a television interview about his client, actress Rehana Khan.
A Relationship That Soured
The dispute originated in , when Khan engaged Siddhiquee as her counsel after she alleged that a senior police officer in Mumbai had attempted to sexually assault her. The professional relationship quickly unravelled. Khan lodged an FIR in naming the officer and also referring to Siddhiquee as "acting under the influence" of the accused. Days later, on , Siddhiquee appeared on news channels Aaj Tak and Zee News, discussing his client's case, playing recorded conversations between them, and characterising her rape complaint as a "false case" aimed at garnering publicity.
In , Khan filed a complaint under before the , which was later transferred to the BCI's Disciplinary Committee. The Committee found Siddhiquee guilty of for issuing a without authority, disclosing confidential information that led to Khan's identification in the media, and making derogatory public remarks about her. It directed his for two years and imposed a fine of Rs 3 lakh payable to Khan, plus Rs 2 lakh to the BCI's Welfare Fund.
Cross Appeals and Double Disapproval
Both parties appealed. Khan sought enhancement of the punishment to permanent removal from the bar and Rs 2 crore in . Siddhiquee argued that the were vitiated because the final hearing was conducted , and that his actions were justified—he had only spoken to the media to defend himself against accusations in the FIR, and had by then ceased to be Khan's counsel.
The Supreme Court flatly rejected Siddhiquee's contention. On the
hearing claim, the Court noted that he had filed a written statement and participated in evidence.
"The ground is flimsy and is, in our view, an afterthought,"
the judgment stated, adding that a party who is himself an advocate could not plead ignorance of pending proceedings.
On the substantive misconduct, the bench underscored the inviolable nature of lawyer-.
"An advocate’s duty is not conditional upon the client's continued good behaviour toward the advocate. An advocate cannot use information received in confidence against his client, and the fact that she has since become his adversary makes no difference,"
the Court observed.
Turning to Khan's appeal, the bench found that she too came with "less than clean hands." The Court noted that she had voluntarily appeared before the electronic media on July 28, 2014, contradicting her grievance that her case was made public. It also pointed to her discussions with Siddhiquee about "trapping" the police officer—hardly the conduct of a client seeking only legal advice.
"Having been less than candid about each of these matters, she cannot ask us to enlarge a relief granted to her,"
the Court ruled.
for Abusing Process
The judgment condemned the conduct of both parties for occupying the time of the BCI, a High Court, and the Supreme Court for eleven years.
"That time belonged to other litigants, waiting for reliefs they genuinely need,"
the bench observed. It directed each party to deposit Rs 5 lakh with the
within four weeks, failing which the amount would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
In a final observation encapsulating the frustration of the court, the judgment noted:
"Stripped of its theatre, what these proceedings disclose is a controversy which two litigants have between them manufactured, prolonged and brought to the highest court in the country, each in the hope that we would be sufficiently diverted by the spectacle to overlook their own part in creating it. We have not been."
What the Decision Means
The ruling reaffirms that an advocate's duty of confidentiality survives even after the ends and continues even if the client accuses the lawyer of wrongdoing. The imposition of heavy on the complainant—a step rarely taken—serves as a warning against litigants who approach disciplinary bodies and courts with suppressed facts and afterthoughts. For the legal profession, the message is unequivocal: taking a client's secrets to a television studio, regardless of provocation, amounts to that invites serious consequences.
All pending applications were disposed of. The Supreme Court upheld the BCI's order in its entirety. Cross appeals in and were dismissed, as was Khan's appeal for enhancement in .
